Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > feminism...for discussion      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 26
feminism...for discussionPage 2 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Paul, after reading your post to me in another forum, I have no desire to engage in a discourse with someone who falls to the level of personal insults.

My last comment to you in this forum that applies to all forums is: "This is my last comment to you."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 27
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/21/2011 2:45:09 PM

Honestly, opening all those doors would make me feel like a “princess,” and not in a good way. I’d be worried that people would think I was mistreating the guy or that I was a dominatrix out with a client for some weird public humiliation fantasy.


I wish I could believe you were kidding. I have never met a woman who even hinted that my opening doors for her made her feel anything remotely like that. And I don't think I'm the exception as to this. Most people enjoy both giving and receiving little social courtesies.

I saw enough extreme feminist dross on various campuses--most of it cooked up by some of the dimmer bulbs around--to last me several lifetimes. I had hoped it had gone the way of most Women's Studies programs, "herstory," "sixty-two cents on the dollar," and other similar nonsense meant to gull the dull. But maybe not.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 28
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/21/2011 4:33:54 PM
^^^^^Once in a while a woman will open the door for me--usually if I'm carrying a lot of stuff. Because I know I could have gotten it myself, this always irritates me. Somehow I just know she did it as a way of putting me down. So, when that happens, I make it a point never to smile or thank them. And that's not being rude--it's just defending my rights.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 29
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/21/2011 6:15:32 PM

Once in a while a woman will open the door for me--usually if I'm carrying a lot of stuff. Because I know I could have gotten it myself, this always irritates me. Somehow I just know she did it as a way of putting me down. So, when that happens, I make it a point never to smile or thank them. And that's not being rude--it's just defending my rights.


I can't tell if you are being facetious or not, but if not, how sad. I have opened doors for men and when I do, they smile and say, "Thank you." I have done it even when their arms are not full.

Perhaps is one's demeanor and general expression. People smile at me all the time--men, women, teenagers, and little kids. But then, I often smile first, and a smile goes a long way. Sometimes, people don't smile back, but I can't remember when I have EVER had a stranger be rude to me.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 30
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/21/2011 6:19:08 PM

Feminism is a religion invented by women who have a face that looks like a bag of spanners.


I didn't invent feminism, but I assure you, my face does not look like a bag of spanners--whatever spanners must be.


Why should I hold a door open for a woman or step aside for a woman if she is equal?


You shouldn't, so don't.


Not being able to critisice women is like not being able to critisise Jews or Roman Catholics in case it offends them.


You are free to criticize whomever you like, as you just did.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/22/2011 6:49:21 AM
I'm with Halftime again. If the logic one uses is that "if communists do it, it's part of their plan to conquer us," then all "REAL" anti-communists should stop breathing RIGHT NOW.
As an historian, I am almost constantly beset by the fervent wish that MORE PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY STUDY HISTORY before they rant about such things.
All in all, what I see with many arguments like this, is that someone STARTS from a selfish desire they have, to make their own life easier, and then they look around for any stray fusses that someone ELSE had going, and cut and paste those fusses onto their own argument. No discussion or argument that is built in that manner has any validity, nor can the person arguing it ever be persuaded of their logical errors. At the root, all they HAVE is their desire for whatever they are after, so they'll simply switch from one cut-and-paste to another, until the rest of us realize they wont listen, and we give up talking to them. THEN, they loudly crow that they won the argument. Since they wont actually get what they want because they won, unfortunately they will be back annoying us with MORE caustic nonsense in short order.
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 32
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/22/2011 7:46:03 AM

All in all, what I see with many arguments like this, is that someone STARTS from a selfish desire they have, to make their own life easier, and then they look around for any stray fusses that someone ELSE had going, and cut and paste those fusses onto their own argument. No discussion or argument that is built in that manner has any validity, nor can the person arguing it ever be persuaded of their logical errors.


I totally agree with you on this one.
 normaldude
Joined: 3/8/2006
Msg: 33
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/22/2011 1:23:07 PM
Seems like an interesting discussion to have on a dating site that has been set up to try and enable people to find a partner after they have had a relationship end? Lots of reasons cause splits in our society and this may be one factor. Feminism isnt the only one but it has been evolving for the last 30-40 years, has it run its course and is it fizzling out?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 34
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/22/2011 1:55:58 PM
^^^
If feminism "has runs it's course and is fizzling out", I would venture to guess that freeing slaves and apartheid in America have as well? Are you serious?
The modern women's equality movement started in 1792, took another hundred years for the first suffrage victory in New Zealand and not till after WW I in the US. "Feminism" will run it's course when men quit referring to it as feminism, quit referring to it with disdain, and grow up and accept human equality in all things for all.
The alleged "splits" don't come from "feminism" but from some residual insecurity issues among certain folks.
Perhaps when we have our first black or asian, lesbian, muslim president, we will finally have come of age.
IMHO...
PS...my mom was a "feminist" long before Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan started vocalizing for the movement.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 35
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/22/2011 2:42:48 PM
The sentence
Men and women are equal
is not complete until you add
but different.

Then value the difference
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 36
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/22/2011 5:17:04 PM
equality..from ONN
http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/video/dome-extra-sick-little-girl-fulfills-dream-of-heck,18831/
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 37
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/22/2011 7:31:05 PM

PS...my mom was a "feminist" long before Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan started vocalizing for the movement.


Pups, so was my grandmother! Even before my grandfather died in the mid 1930s, she held the family together and raised their five kids. After the kids grew up and moved out, she lived alone for years and years. She had no man to "take care" of her, and she managed well.

Many people today have a skewed vision of the part because they know little about history. Those who moan about women working have no idea that women have always worked--the rich didn't, but poor women were prostitutes, nannies, governesses, washerwomen (and ironed them afterward), wet nurses, maids, cooks, charwomen, and seamstresses. They spun yarn, they knitted, and they were weavers. After the advent of the industrial revolution, they worked in factories.

In addition, no one sit around in an agrarian society: wives of farmers were farmers, too.

For hundreds of years, women were not allowed to own property in most instances; anything that they inherited went to their husbands (hence, the marriage license, a legal document). They couldn't vote, they could rarely practice medicine, and they were the property of their husbands. A man who raped his wife was not a rapist. It was legal for a man to beat his wife.

Few women were taught to read and/or write--of course, poor men were not taught, either.

Feminism will "run" its course when men stop ****ing about feminist and just see women.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 38
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/24/2011 2:23:03 AM
It was legal for a man to beat his wife.


Really? Are you talking about this country? If so, I doubt that. I'd be curious to know what state law ever made being a woman's husband a defense against criminal battery or assault, and when that law was in effect.


They couldn't vote


Women have had full voting rights since the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. But before that, women had the right to vote in many state and local elections. I think Wyoming was the first stage to give women suffrage.

Ann Coulter, that well-known dumb blonde, often says women should not be allowed to vote, even though that would cost her too. Like everyone, of course, I know she's a right-wing extremist who hates everything good and nice. But I can't decide if she also qualifies as a sexist.


and they were the property of their husbands.


Oppression of women in various hellholes around the world has been standard procedure forever, and if you were talking about those places, you were only restating the obvious. We know what many of those friendly Muslims abroad think about women's rights.

But if you're talking about America, I think you're just trying to peddle an old canard. First, you'd have to mean a property right that existed before 1865, when the 15th Amendment made slavery and most involuntary servitude unconstitutional. No one in this country has been able to make another person his property for 145 years.

And second, what state ever authorized husbands to make their wives their property?Someone else made this claim recently on another thread, and she couldn't prove it. I'm sure some state constitutions used to authorize things, before the Civil War, that would surprise us today. But ownership of another person? Please.


A man who raped his wife was not a rapist.


Yes--and even today, a man who burglarizes his own house is not a burglar! The common law definition of rape was carnal knowledge of a woman, without her consent, by a man not her husband. So there was no such thing as "a man who raped his wife" until states expanded the definition of rape through statutes.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 39
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/24/2011 9:43:50 AM
^^^^Oops! That should have been the *13th* Amendment--the one which included an exemption to allow chain gangs.
 normaldude
Joined: 3/8/2006
Msg: 40
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/24/2011 2:25:31 PM

women were not allowed to own property in most instances; anything that they inherited went to their husbands (hence, the marriage license, a legal document). They couldn't vote, they could rarely practice medicine, and they were the property of their husbands. A man who raped his wife was not a rapist. It was legal for a man to beat his wife.
Few women were taught to read and/or write


kinda sounds like muslims/islam treatment of women in most places? How are the feminists doing stamping out that behaviour in islam?
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 41
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/24/2011 2:36:09 PM
@ Cheshirecatalyst, in re: Msg 31, and to anyone still reading this exchange:

1. The truth is that (probably) no one other than those who actually made the decision to drop Makow's contract know the real reason why. You, I, or anyone else arguing-- basically we're talking hypotheses.

The more detail I read about him, the more I tend to revise my original position and concur with yours-- he's an out-there crackpot. Not the worst crackpot out there, but a crackpot nonetheless. Even crackpots can be accidentally right about some things, but Makow's track record, IMHO, starts to look worse than a simple random walk.

2. If you genuinely think 'radical feminism' emerged in the 1970's-- that *label* emerged in the 1970's, the politics did not. Feel free to read anything written by Emma Goldman (d. 1940) or her contemporaries, way more "radical" than most of what you'd read today.

3. You see, the nice thing about labels, is that these days *we* like to consider them self-ascriptive. You don't get to label me a "feminist" simply because I believe in equal pay, reproductive rights, social rights or what have you. "Feminist" is an empty label. Palin calls herself one.

4. I beg to differ on the issue as to whom was more influential, Kinsey or Friedan/Steinem/Greer.

First, I think it's a non-question. It all depends on what you elect to look at and how you assign significance to particular social changes. It also depends on the sort of assumptions you make about whether those who come later really could have done what they did, had those who came earlier not laid the groundwork for what those who came later did.

Second, to the extent that it's not a non-question, I'd question the inclusion of Steinem in that trilogy. She was (and still is, somewhat) more of a media darling than an original thinker, in part, maybe less than ironically, because of her looks. Some of the things she has said, for example, about Butler, leave one wondering whether she is genuinely making a Chomsky-style critique about obscure writing or just does not understand what Butler is actually talking about.

Friedan and Greer were genuine thinkers, and both have publicly self-identified as Marxists at different points. The link between so-called 'second wave' feminism and Marxism is pretty clear to anyone who cares to actually look. Lots of people are influenced by Marxist ideas without being aware that that is their source.

Just read The Communist Manifesto, Chapter II, Proletarians and Communists. That was written in 1848. What it says about the role of women and the family is less well developed than what Friedan or Greer would later write-- but hardly all that different.

You do not have to have read ANY Marxist doctrine in the original to be thinking like a Marxist. In fact, probably the VAST majority of those who basically think as Marxists have never read Das Kapital and never will.

5. Guys getting married are brainwashed. Just as women getting married are brainwashed. Not *because* they're getting married, but because the VAST majority of us (me too!) are suffering to some extent from 'brainwashing'.

Anyone who actually understands what the word "patriarchy" is used to mean, or "false consciousness", for that matter, understands the concept of pervasive 'brainwashing' in our culture.

6. As for nobody putting the genie back in the bottle, that sounds like rather wishful thinking to me. I see no basis for the idea that social evolution only works in one direction, and plenty of evidence for the opposite proposition, that it's very easy for us to regress. Just look at ever-increasing income inequality and the ongoing efforts to dismantle state-organized social supports.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 42
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/25/2011 9:44:27 PM
Children are not a matter of financial investment. What a silly argument.
You can get satisfaction outside of marriage. Yep. Maybe. Nothing replaces a good and true vow to care and be there.
From a biological perspective there is every possibility matters will devolve. For flippin sure.
Right, can't go back. Can only correct.
We have not gained the freedom that we experienced as children in the fifties, sixties, seventies and now kids cannot apparently roam free. Yuck.
The only trap is believing you are advancing. History forgotten is a peril.
 CrazyCanuckz
Joined: 12/8/2010
Msg: 43
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/26/2011 1:19:14 AM

Scandinavia, Militant Feminism and Social Engineering


With the US Congress about to take up the Federal Marriage Amendment, let’s travel a little and take a look at how marriage is faring in Scandinavia — specifically Sweden, famous as a bellwether of family change. In 1987, Sweden offered same-sex couples the first domestic partnership package in Europe. This led Denmark in 1989, then Norway in 1993, to set up a more elaborate system of “registered partnerships” (with nearly all the rights of marriage), which Sweden adopted in 1994. Some of these changes were discussed and published in 'The End of Marriage in Scandinavia' (2004) and happened since then.

2004 and 2005 saw the growth, collapse, and apparent rebirth of a campaign to abolish Swedish marriage and replace it with instead by law as a 'gender-neutral partnership system' that allows for multi-partner relationships. This story of the drive to abolish marriage in Sweden is bound up with one of the most bizarre and fascinating political tales of recent years: the rise and burnout of Sweden’s first political party built entirely around women’s issues: the Feminist Initiative (FI).

Youthful Polyamory



Our adventure begins in March of 2004, when one of the few conservative papers in Sweden, 'Nya Dagen', reported that a local youth wing of Sweden’s governing Social Democrat party had endorsed the idea of replacing marriage with a gender-neutral, multi-partner-friendly marriage system. Around the same time, the youth wing of Sweden’s Green party called for formal recognition of polyamorous (i.e. multi-partner) relationships. Editorializing against these moves, Nya Dagen pointed out that the leaders of these youth parties would someday be sitting in parliament. Nya Dagen reminded its readers that the public had been promised no further changes in the family after the initial same-sex partnership legislation in 1987, and again after Registered Partnerships in 1994. Don’t believe it! said Nya Dagen. Unless the country reverses course, Sweden will surely slip further down the slope. That editorial prompted an angry letter from, Einar Westergaard, a spokesperson for the Green party’s youth wing:

What we are trying to achieve is a sexual revolution and counteract the hierarchy that gives heterosexuality privileges and represses other forms of social life....The two-person standard is part of society’s heterosexual norm...(whereas it is our) aspiration to make the laws as norm-free as possible....Marriage is not the key to homosexual, bisexual, and transgender liberation. What’s essential is the battle for norm-free, sex-neutral legislation, and a society without heterosexual norms.”

Certainly, a pro-polyamory movement among the youth divisions of Sweden’s ruling left-wing coalition bodes ill for the future. Yet the marriage-abolition bandwagon got rolling a whole lot sooner than Nya Dagen could have guessed. It merely took a little help from Sweden’s feminists.

Feminist Pressure

Only a few months after their first pro-polyamory upsurge, in the summer of 2004, Sweden’s feminists grew restive with the apparent failure of their attempt to impose gender quotas on the nation’s businesses. In 2002, Equality Minister, Margareta Winberg, had set a much publicized target of 25-percent female representation on the boards of Sweden’s publicly listed companies. Winberg threatened government-imposed quotas if this “goal” was not reached by 2004. With gender quotas already in place in Norway, Sweden’s businesses had to take the threat seriously. Yet by 2004, Sweden’s companies were nowhere near compliance, with women making up only 11.6 percent of board members. What’s more, a majority of parliament opposed business gender quotas. True, the Left Party and Green party supported quotas, but the key to the governing left-wing coalition, the Social Democratic party, was deeply divided over the proposal. So it looked like a major defeat for Sweden’s powerful feminists was in the offing. They’d promised to impose business gender quotas by 2004 if the “goals” weren’t met, yet Sweden’s feminists seemed unable to carry through on their threat.

To break the log jam, Gudrun Schyman, a charismatic member, and former head, of Sweden’s Left party, decided to form a new political party called the “Feminist Initiative.” As the West’s most secular country, where changes in family structure and gender roles are most “advanced,” Sweden is the center of world feminism. If Sweden’s many feminists could be drawn into a single party, reasoned Schyman, the governing Social Democrats might be forced to bring them into its coalition. The price would be Social Democrat support for a package of feminist legislation, including business gender quotas. This strategy risked splintering the vote on the left and turning the country over to a coalition of social moderates. Yet if a feminist party could draw more than the four-percent minimum of the votes required for parliamentary representation, prospects for a brave new world of feminist legislation were strong.

Feminist Shopping List

A few months before Schyman left the Left party to form the Feminist Initiative, she had stirred up controversy by proposing a “man tax:” a tax leveled only on men, to help pay for the government’s extensive array of feminist-run shelters for battered women. Schyman’s “man tax” idea stirred outrage from more moderate commentators like Liza Marklund: “To declare that all men are guilty of all rapes, that all men are guilty of violence against women — that’s not just offensive and wrong; if the purpose is to get anywhere with this issue it’s just plain stupid.”


Marklund’s comments proved prophetic. Yet the man-bashing had to reach an unheard of pitch before the reaction finally began. So long as the “man tax” and business-board quotas were the issue, Schyman’s promise to “break down the patriarchal order of power” through FI (the Feminist Initiative) enjoyed wide support. Early polling showed that five percent of the public would “definitely” vote for FI, and an amazing 20-25 percent said they would at least consider supporting FI. Numbers like that could easily have brought business-board quotas, a man-tax, and many other feminist proposals into law.


Even during this early period of popular support, the Feminist Initiative floated some remarkably radical ideas. FI planned to change Sweden’s rape laws by requiring men to ask women permission for sex (something like the famous rules of sexual engagement at Antioch College). There was also a call for “comparable worth” legislation, to equalize pay between professions dominated by men (e.g., truck drivers) and women (e.g., phone operators).

A central plank of FI’s platform was forcing fathers to take as much time off for childcare as mothers. (Most of the one-year leave allowed to Swedish parents can be taken by either the mother, the father, or both). Determined to eliminate all differences between men and women, Sweden’s feminist wanted to assign half of this leave to fathers alone. That would force fathers to spend as much time on early child-rearing as mothers, or would push children into the day care system at six months of age. (Most Swedish children enter state-run day care at age one.) Either alternative would strike a huge blow against traditional family roles. Sweden’s feminists also hoped to promote androgyny through gender quotas for day care workers, and through attempts to suppress the gender-specific behavior of boys and girls in day care.

Feminist Gains

Schyman’s strategy quickly bore fruit. To stem the tide of feminist deserters, left-leaning parties put forward proposals modeled on FI’s platform. The governing Social Democrats recommended an “equality bonus” for families that took the same amount of paternal and maternal leave.

And as one of many concessions to FI, the government agreed to consider adopting formal same-sex marriage (instead of “registered partnerships”). Together, the three left-coalition parties (the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Greens) decided to give lesbian couples the right to receive artificial insemination from the government’s health service. This eliminated one of the sole remaining differences between registered partnerships and marriage.


Lesbian couples were given the benefit of government-supported insemination regardless of whether they were registered partners or simply cohabiting. That is quite the opposite of what the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage would predict, of course. The government was treating registered partnership on a par with mere cohabitation as a setting for parenthood. The government also agreed that both members of the lesbian couple would be recognized as a child’s mother, thereby creating potential claims of triple parenthood and contributing to the notion that fathers are dispensable. The new regulations on lesbian insemination came into effect in July of 2005, along with a number of other measures designed to promote androgyny (for example, a measure that prohibits businesses from charging women more than men for the “same” service — say, a haircut).


By spring of 2005, the Feminist Initiative was riding high. The new cultural mood emboldened Sweden’s feminists both in and out of government. As a result of feminist threats, for example, the Miss Sweden pageant was canceled (for the first time since 1952).

'Men Are Animals'

In the midst of all this feminist success, trouble struck with the Swedish broadcast of a televised documentary called 'The Gender War'. This close-up look at Sweden’s feminist movement exposed a degree of radicalism that shocked even Sweden’s socially liberal public.

The documentary featured prominent feminist academic and activist, Eva Lundgren, claiming that half of all Swedish women are victims of male violence. Lundgren went on to assert that a network of male Satanist groups had carried out hundreds of ritual baby murders in Sweden. (A formal inquiry by Uppsala University has since discredited both claims.) Another segment of the documentary featured Ireen von Wachenfeldt, chair of the government’s women’s shelters. Von Wachenfeldt’s remarks set off what soon became known as the “men are animals” controversy.

Under Von Wachenfeldt, the government’s women’s shelter network had printed excerpts from the “SCUM Manifesto” (Society for Cutting Up Men), penned by a radical feminist in the late 1960s. The SCUM Manifesto urges women to “destroy the male sex” by using modern science to insure that only female children are born. SCUM goes on to say: “To call a man an animal is to flatter him: he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” Asked by the film-maker if she agreed, Von Wachenfeldt said, “Yes, man is an animal. Don’t you think so?”


Lundgren and Von Wachenfeldt’s televised statements set off shock waves in a Sweden perhaps soon to be governed by a coalition that would include FI. After all, the “man tax” would fund a shelter system run by a woman who appeared to despise men. The government’s new Equality Minister, Jens Orback, seized on the controversy to criticize Von Wachenfeldt’s “separatist” decision not to work with or employ men in government shelters.


Thrown off-balance by the controversy, the Feminist Initiative tried to find a “male feminist” to place on its governing board. Unfortunately, their chosen male candidate declined the honor.

Dogged by the “men are animals” controversy through the spring and summer, the Feminist Initiative headed into its critical September 2005 convention determined to emerge with a winning platform. Yet the convention saw divisions emerge. After a bitter power-struggle, several “moderates” resigned from FI’s board. They complained that a “broad-based” program (focused, say, on business quotas and compulsory paternity leave) was being pushed aside by a radical coalition dominated by homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered. One erstwhile FI board member said she’d been “bullied for being a middle-class heterosexual.”

Determined to transcend “patriarchal norms,” FI decided against having official leaders. Yet now the purged “moderate” feminists complained of a “democratic deficit” on the board. The Feminist Initiative had become “much worse” than the traditional patriarchal organizations it was meant to replace, said one. In other words, “man tax” advocate and de facto leader, Gudrun Schyman, was in control, purging the “moderates” (themselves quite radical by American standards) and siding with the radicals. The entertainment at the conference further radicalized the party’s image, particularly the rapturous applause for a song that went, “F***ing man, we’re going to chop you to bits.”

The slope from gay marriage to polyamory and ultimately to no marriage is not slippery by accident, but by design.



http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/7845-scandinavia-militant-feminism-social.html




Aloha Mr. Newman,

Thank you for your acknowlegement. It pains me to speak out against Sweden since it is the land of my forefathers but I cannot remain silent in the ongoing apostasy in Sweden. Those who speak out against the prevailing orthodoxy or shall I say heterodoxy, in Sweden are consigned to a life of misery. They will never hold a job, save for picking up trash and certain other service jobs, never get a loan for housing or otherwise enjoy fruits of their labors. Sweden is a Gulag for those opposed to its heterodoxy.

Best wishes,

CD


http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/7845-scandinavia-militant-feminism-social.html
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 44
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/27/2011 7:17:38 PM
I wrote:
Many people today have a skewed vision of the part because they know little about history.


Matchlight, the US is but a small part of the world and our history is short compared to other countries. Our laws—and traditions that were practiced but not always codified—reach back to those countries. When I said that many people have a skewed vision of the past, I refer to not only the recent past, but the far past. The events leading up to women's suffrage and the feminist movement didn't start in at the onset of the movement, but were a culmination of centuries.

I said it was legal for a man to beat his wife; you said:


Really? Are you talking about this country? If so, I doubt that. I'd be curious to know what state law ever made being a woman's husband a defense against criminal battery or assault, and when that law was in effect.


If the feminist movement had only taken place in the US, then I would have addressed only issues in the US, but it is not specific to the US. “Beating” is not only applicable to criminal battery or assault, but perhaps some don’t consider a slap across the face a form of beating.


- In London, England, wife beating is legal just as long as it is not after 9pm and it doesn’t disturb the neighbours.
http://www.bspcn.com/2007/08/18/the-worlds-strangest-laws/

But yes, even in the US, we have had laws such as this:


Those same marriage minded females need to be aware that it is perfectly legal for husbands to beat their wives on the steps of the courthouse on Sundays.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/561615
/south_carolinas_dumb_laws_make_wife.html

Check out this site: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion
/TRFPIGB62AGFRG19A/p2

When I was getting my MA, I took a class in gender issues that covered English law. I can dig out my texts and give you citations from them if you wish.


Women have had full voting rights since the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. But before that, women had the right to vote in many state and local elections. I think Wyoming was the first stage to give women suffrage.


I wrote, “They [women] couldn’t vote”—are you supporting that statement or disparaging it? In 1893, Colorado gave women the right to vote in that state; however, women could not vote for president until the passage of the 19th amendment.


First Woman to Vote in the United States Under the 19th Amendment (Suffrage Amendment):
Mrs. Marie Ruoff Byrum, August 31, 1920, 7 a.m.
http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question10018.html

I wrote that wives were the property of their husbands.


But if you're talking about America, I think you're just trying to peddle an old canard. First, you'd have to mean a property right that existed before 1865, when the 15th Amendment made slavery and most involuntary servitude unconstitutional. No one in this country has been able to make another person his property for 145 years.


You take the narrow view of the US—you also argue on semantics. Laws do not always govern the internal workings of a marriage or a family.


Nineteenth century laws also led to a woman’s oppression in regard to her husband. Most states enforced a common law, which stated a husband had the legal right to control his wife and all her possessions. This meant, upon marriage, a women lost control over her children, inheritance, wages, all her belongings, and, in effect, herself
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/14320589datingPostpage3.aspx


In some places these rights are institutionalized or supported by law, local custom, and behaviour, whereas in others they may be ignored or suppressed. They differ from broader notions of human rights through claims of an inherent historical and traditional bias against the exercise of rights by women and girls in favour of men and boys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights

In addition:
During the 19th century women in the United States and Britain began to challenge laws that denied them the right to their property once they married. Under the common law doctrine of coverture husbands gained control of their wives' real estate and wages. Beginning in the 1840s, state legislatures in the United States [35]and the British Parliament[36] began passing statutes that protected women's property from their husbands and their husbands' creditors. These laws were known as the Married Women's Property Acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights

Until the passage of such laws, men owned any property deeded to their wives through an inheritance. You can argue that isn’t slavery, but not being able to own property and being at the whim of their husbands is, essentially, being property. A husband had control over his wife's money. In addition, the Biblical injunction for wive to obey their husbands contributed to the idea of male superiority and his religious right as the head of the family.

The response to my statement about rape:


Yes--and even today, a man who burglarizes his own house is not a burglar! The common law definition of rape was carnal knowledge of a woman, without her consent, by a man not her husband. So there was no such thing as "a man who raped his wife" until states expanded the definition of rape through statutes.


I simply cannot be so cavalier about the issue of rape. Perhaps you consider laws that govern such things as a husband forcing sex on his wife ethical or not rape because “rape” was not defined, but I say ANY forced sex is rape. Again, semantics, but in reality, a horse is a horse and rape is rape.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 45
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/27/2011 9:33:10 PM
Just wondering. Why do I dislike men?
They are stubborn and vain beyond their capacities. Vanity is not ALWAYS about looks. Men value their opinions way too much and far beyond when they should give them up.
Why do I dislike women?
Same as above. Not much difference other than the body.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 46
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/28/2011 12:19:15 PM
@Cheshirecatalyst:

You wrote:
"But I fantasize that one day, Makow, Icke, Jones, Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and a few others will hold a press conference to announce that it was all a joke, a huge satire."

Actually, I fantasize that we can have a live simulcast of all of them trapped in a stopped elevator for two weeks. You can tune in every day when they get a bottle of water and some beef jerky dropped in through the ceiling. You'd think Limbaugh would be the survivor, like some hibernation-ready bear, but 48 hours without painkillers? Who knows. Besides, who'd be able to sleep in the same room with someone who thinks you just might be an alien lizard in disguise?

Russell was a very brilliant man who had some serious political blind spots, like many of the Oxbridge ilk of his generation.

As for Sanger, a LOT of that so-called First Wave group of feminists were unabashed eugenicists, racists, alcohol prohibitionists and embraced all kinds of causes that would come as an anathema to many on the left today. Just as I suspect that the Dworkin/Brownmiller/MacKinnon brand of anti-sex / moral panic / pro-censorship feminism will be viewed by future generations.

As for "feminist" it's a far more empty label than many labels, that's my point. It's more empty than "Marxist" for example, because Marxists at least have a core political program upon which their beliefs are based, even if they are 'neo'-Marxists or what have you.

A Marxist has a fundamentally conflictual world-view in which capitalists exploit proletarians (or whatever updated label you want), that situation is wrong, and the dialectical interaction of evolving historical conditions is eventually going to produce a revolution in that order. That's dumbing down and oversimplifying it a LOT, but it's still a core political belief system.

"Feminists" do not have that. Compare Naomi Wolf to Emma Goldman. Apart from the fact that one was a genuine thinker and the other is (to date, at least) a pseudo-intellectual, they essentially have no political positions in common. The same could be said for Palin and either of them. Like it or not, so many people with wildly disparate opinions have appropriated the label that the label means ZIP.

Actually, if you think sex and companionship are freely available without marriage, you're really writing from a very female point of view.

A key point of tension in many relationships comes up when women make it clear that unless marriage is in the cards, sex and companionship no longer is. There are a lot of men who have married not because they wanted to, but because the person they wanted to be with would not continue the relationship otherwise and they knew it.

To be an economist about it-- the guys are selling. The girls are shopping, and buying. And they can rent if they feel like it. (Now, there's the minor detail that most of them are after the same set of products, but it still does not change the fundamental dynamic.)

(And yes, I'm leaving the LBGT "community" out of this, but I'm too ignorant of the way that it works for all of them to do more than admit my ignorance).

And by-the-by, I completely disagree with any biological metaphor for societies.

Societies demonstrably DO NOT become more "civilized" over time. The entire course of the 20th Century is a clear reductio ad absurdam of any such claim. Societies became more technologically advanced (most of them, at least) but their level of "civilization" looks much more like a random walk punctuated by serious extremes.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 47
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 1/31/2011 8:15:33 AM
@ cheshirecatalyst:

1. This whole Icke/Makow business is increasingly hilarious.

Of course, it helps that I spent several hours watching videos of that "V" show from the 1980's last night. The special effects were just COMIC.

And the notion that someone would found a political program and belief system on the theory that "V" was basically reality masquerading as a bad TV show AND some people would actually take that seriously??!?!?!? Now it seems to have NO connection at all to feminism until you watch "V" and notice that all the alien bosses were "women" (well, girl lizards wearing woman "suits", and rockin' the 1980's shades, shoulder pads and big spray-do's).

2. "Because some radicals co-opted those theories and used them in conjunction with eugenics and other extreme mathusian views does that somehow imply that feminism is a more nebulous label than Marxism?"

Yup. That's pretty much 'zactly what it implies. And you've hidden a whopper of a suppressed premise in that "co-opted" line. Had you asked them at the time, they would have told you that there was no "co-opting" going on whatsoever, that these views were all quite intellectually consistent. It wasn't the Rockefeller laws in NY that gave us prohibition-- "P"rohibition came from those people.

Oh, and feel free to define "patriarchy". If possible, give us a definition that isn't a moving target, so that we can know when it's been "ended" and those claiming to the contrary are just trying to get government grants.

3. Obviously we're not talking about Chinese, Indian or other Asian cultures. That's a pretty obvious attempt to change the subject.

As you accurately observe, Western men cannot relate to the position of women in those cultures, but you omit to point out that Western women cannot really relate to it either.

And the way the subject matter is getting raised is a VAST overgeneralization anyhow. The life situation of an upper middle class Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai or Bangalore woman has virtually nothing in common with someone living in a Thai back-country village or some hamlet in Bangladesh that's so small it hasn't even got a name, so let's just not go there.

4. A lot of men demonstrably DO "eschew" (great word) the "benefits" of marriage.

Part of the motivation for that is an ever-growing perception that those "benefits" are pretty dubious. Lots of guys my age and younger are children of divorce. They went through their own parents' divorces and often by my age one or two divorces themselves.

Now I'm sure there could easily be a very lively debate about who bears more of the costs of divorce as between men and women-- but this is topic drift.

5. It's kind of strange to see, Cheshire, how you vary between being a self-labeled "feminist" with a more 'radical' analysis of the society we're living in and suddenly turn into an 18th century Whig progressive when we talk about legal history.

This is one of liberal feminism's biggest blind spots. The grand assumption is that the coercive power of state law is supposed to be drafted into the service of the feminist "project" however defined. So we get activism around divorce laws, activism around the whole concept of "rape shield" laws to control cross-examination, concepts like 'mandatory arrest' rules in cases of domestic violence accusations and so on. This is somehow supposed to improve the position of women in society without being critically assessed.

"As societies advance, they all develop systems of law as deterrents"? A massive overgeneralization at best, and a clear oversimplification of the relationship between laws and societies. The vast majority of the law is not about 'deterring' people from particular courses of action but rather about resolving disputes between them that may or may not concern 'higher' authorities than the individuals themselves. Even criminal law is really more about retribution than deterrence, even if deterrence is part of the publicly expressed ideology underlying it.

First, why 'presume' that law is not an instrument of domination? Often it quite obviously is exactly that.

Second, why presume that there is some clear relationship between the advance in complexity or sophistication of a system of law and that of the society in which it operates? Why presume that there is any relationship between legal sophistication and the values we want a society to reflect? Often the opposite is true.

The Corpus Juris Civilis of the Emperor Justinian was an immensely sophisticated document and as a body of living law operated in Court systems of, well, Byzantine complexity. Arguably it was an instrument of tyranny over a society which was in ongoing slow decline and collapse, on any indicator from agricultural productivity to military effectiveness to material culture. This is but one example.

6. "Would you not agree that democratic societies are more stable and transparent than other types of government?" No, I would not. To even advance that proposition you've silently drawn a ring-fence around a few sample stable-and-transparent democracies and put them forward as examples. Mostly Western European and North American democracies, with post-1950 Japan and India tossed into the mix. Even India would have been considered more than a bit of a basket-case country a mere decade or two ago.

The vast majority of democracies are unstable, opaque, corrupt, ineffectual, riven with conflict and regularly veer into authoritarianism or anarchy. Afghanistan is a democracy for the moment. I'd give it a lifespan of thirty seconds after the departure of the last American-manufactured soldier's boot from Afghan soil.

Clan/tribe/extended-family controlled military dictatorships are generally much more stable and often more transparent than democracies. I'd still rather have democracies, because stability and transparency are not the key values, IMHO.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 48
view profile
History
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:26:16 AM
The patriarchial Right in the US is continuing their war on women by redefining rape now.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027742.php

" For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense."
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 49
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:31:57 AM
It's worse than just excluding statutory rape victims from access to medical care - the new rules mean that women who've been slipped Rohipnol are no longer considered rape victims for the purpose of medical care.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 50
feminism...for discussion
Posted: 2/3/2011 12:55:19 PM
@ Cheshire...responses will be terse this time, apologies for the parsimony.

1. The definition you offer for "patriarchy" is so vague that it's obviously designed to make the feminist project never-ending.

The hard truth is that there is no good reason to believe we will ever arrive at a genuinely egalitarian society, some people will always have more power than others and some of those people will be men.

2. The assertion to the effect that Asian immigrants to major Canadian cities "import most of their culture" is a wild overgeneralization and you know that. And about the only things 1950's Montreal has in common with today's Montreal are: (a) some buildings, (b) French, and (c) a serious organized crime problem. That's about it.

3. Charlie Sheen, Joe Francis, and Kelsey Grammar's relationship histories are proof positive that you do not need good judgment to get rich in Hollywood. Joe Francis also demonstrates that ethics, morality, law abiding behaviour or even good taste to get rich in Hollywood.

4. Just because a woman has a job does not make her a feminist...please.

5. Not everything Bertrand Russell said or did was necessarily brilliant. His take on the Soviet Union was completely misguided, IMHO.

6. Rape shield laws are another topic. I'm very reluctant to even discuss them at all, because merely advancing any critical comment about them, no matter how well reasoned, automatically raises a stigma of somehow defending rapists.

I will state ONE thing only about them. They're contemptuous of the average person.

The fundamental underlying idea is that a juror, an "ordinary" citizen, simply cannot be trusted to make basic, common sense inferences that ought to be obvious to any thinking person, and must at all costs be shielded from information that they *might* just use in an illogical fashion.

It is just *obvious* that if a woman consents to have or continue sexual activity with someone on one occasion, that does not mean that she will necessarily be more likely to do so on another occasion, even if it's with the same person as the prior occasion.

I'm sorry, but anyone who cannot grasp that is just a *dolt*, and to legislate into law what is effectively a presumption that the average citizen juror is a dolt is a BIT much.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > feminism...for discussion